What if... Pie/Marshall/??

[Mizzou]

Look man, we're obviously not going to see eye-to-eye on this thing. You think that Marquis has been awful, I look at the numbers and disagree. Whatever. I think he's been much better than expected, and overall has been a fine addition to the back end of the rotation. If you disagree, that's your prerogative and you're certainly entitled to it.

[jersey cubs fan]

You think that Marquis has been awful, I look at the numbers and disagree.

 

He's been beyond awful for over two months now.

[Keener98]

You think that Marquis has been awful, I look at the numbers and disagree.

 

He's been beyond awful for over two months now.

 

But his overall ERA is decent damnit!

[bsucubsfan]

first 10 starts he was awesome. last 15 he's been awful. simple as that. He was throwing change and his sinker for strikes early on but now has stopped throwing the change and people know his sinker is the pitch he relies on and they lay off and make him throw a meatball. the main problem with marquis is he can go from great to bench in a matter of pitches. he loses his ability to throw strikes at the drop of a hat

[Ding Dong Johnson]

You think that Marquis has been awful, I look at the numbers and disagree.

 

He's been beyond awful for over two months now.

 

and getting worse

[Guest]

Let's drop the confrontation here, guys. It's possible to make this argument without the drama.

[Mizzou]

You think that Marquis has been awful, I look at the numbers and disagree.

 

He's been beyond awful for over two months now.

Hahaha, I have a long discussion with another poster and finally come to the conclusion that we should just agree to disagree and then you chime in with that literally the next minute? Seriously goony?

[davearm]

Ok smartass why the hell is it so hard for you to comprehend the fact that his stats are skewed from his 2.35 ERA to start the damn season?

That begs the question, why is it hard for you to comprehend that perhaps the correct explanation here is that Marquis' stats are skewed by his July numbers (6.29 ERA in 6 starts), and the guy we saw from April through June (3.46 in 16 starts) is the "real" Marquis?

 

If you want to throw out a stretch of starts as being anomalous, and look at the rest as being more representative of what everyone should expect going forward, then why is it that you choose to throw out three months and 16 starts' worth of results, and keep one month and 6 starts' worth?

 

And while I'm at it, why should we expect Marquis' 2006 season (6.02 ERA) to be the proper benchmark for his future production, and not his 2005 (4.13) or 2004 (3.71) seasons?

[Drew Doughty]

Ok smartass why the hell is it so hard for you to comprehend the fact that his stats are skewed from his 2.35 ERA to start the damn season?

That begs the question, why is it hard for you to comprehend that perhaps the correct explanation here is that Marquis' stats are skewed by his July numbers (6.29 ERA in 6 starts), and the guy we saw from April through June (3.46 in 16 starts) is the "real" Marquis?

 

If you want to throw out a stretch of starts as being anomalous, and look at the rest as being more representative of what everyone should expect going forward, then why is it that you choose to throw out three months and 16 starts' worth of results, and keep one month and 6 starts' worth?

 

And while I'm at it, why should we expect Marquis' 2006 season (6.02 ERA) to be the proper benchmark for his future production, and not his 2005 (4.13) or 2004 (3.71) seasons?

 

Because there are tons of secondary numbers that indicate that his 2004 and 2005 seasons were flukes. while he certainly isn't as bad as he was in 2006, he's not a very good pitcher.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Jason Marquis, month by month:

 

April 2.35 ERA, .554 OPS against

May 3.38 ERA, .593 OPS against

June 5.09 ERA, .823 OPS against

July 6.29 ERA, .899 OPS against

August 8.44 ERA, .949 OPS against

 

I'll take "Trends that are as clear as day" for $500, Alex.

[JC]

Jason Marquis, month by month:

 

April 2.35 ERA, .554 OPS against

May 3.38 ERA, .593 OPS against

June 5.09 ERA, .823 OPS against

July 6.29 ERA, .899 OPS against

August 8.44 ERA, .949 OPS against

 

I'll take "Trends that are as clear as day" for $500, Alex.

 

LOL!

[davearm]

Jason Marquis, month by month:

 

April 2.35 ERA, .554 OPS against

May 3.38 ERA, .593 OPS against

June 5.09 ERA, .823 OPS against

July 6.29 ERA, .899 OPS against

August 8.44 ERA, .949 OPS against

 

I'll take "Trends that are as clear as day" for $500, Alex.

... and the sample size alarms blare.

 

Marquis' monthly ERAs, 2004-2007:

April: 3.59

May: 4.02

June: 6.12

July: 4.03

August: 5.75

September: 4.11

 

So historically, he's pitched like a #5 starter (or worse) in June and August, and significantly better than a #5 starter in April, May, July, and September.

[JC]

Jason Marquis, month by month:

 

April 2.35 ERA, .554 OPS against

May 3.38 ERA, .593 OPS against

June 5.09 ERA, .823 OPS against

July 6.29 ERA, .899 OPS against

August 8.44 ERA, .949 OPS against

 

I'll take "Trends that are as clear as day" for $500, Alex.

... and the sample size alarms blare.

 

Marquis' monthly ERAs, 2004-2007:

April: 3.59

May: 4.02

June: 6.12

July: 4.03

August: 5.75

September: 4.11

 

So historically, he's pitched like a #5 starter (or worse) in June and August, and significantly better than a #5 starter in April, May, July, and September.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong as I don't generally follow the Cards, but wasn't he shut down for September last year when he was brutal? If so, wouldn't that fact tend to, at least, affect the argument with respect to that month?

[JC]

Forget my last post. I should have looked first. Apparently, he made starts in September.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Jason Marquis, month by month:

 

April 2.35 ERA, .554 OPS against

May 3.38 ERA, .593 OPS against

June 5.09 ERA, .823 OPS against

July 6.29 ERA, .899 OPS against

August 8.44 ERA, .949 OPS against

 

I'll take "Trends that are as clear as day" for $500, Alex.

... and the sample size alarms blare.

 

Marquis' monthly ERAs, 2004-2007:

April: 3.59

May: 4.02

June: 6.12

July: 4.03

August: 5.75

September: 4.11

 

So historically, he's pitched like a #5 starter (or worse) in June and August, and significantly better than a #5 starter in April, May, July, and September.

 

I don't understand what point you're addressing. The insinuation from several people all along in this thread is that Marquis has been worse than his season numbers for a while because of the downward trend. What's the relevance of 4 year monthly splits?

[davearm]

Jason Marquis, month by month:

 

April 2.35 ERA, .554 OPS against

May 3.38 ERA, .593 OPS against

June 5.09 ERA, .823 OPS against

July 6.29 ERA, .899 OPS against

August 8.44 ERA, .949 OPS against

 

I'll take "Trends that are as clear as day" for $500, Alex.

... and the sample size alarms blare.

 

Marquis' monthly ERAs, 2004-2007:

April: 3.59

May: 4.02

June: 6.12

July: 4.03

August: 5.75

September: 4.11

 

So historically, he's pitched like a #5 starter (or worse) in June and August, and significantly better than a #5 starter in April, May, July, and September.

 

I don't understand what point you're addressing. The insinuation from several people all along in this thread is that Marquis has been worse than his season numbers for a while because of the downward trend. What's the relevance of 4 year monthly splits?

The 4 year monthly splits spanning 100+ starts are better predictors of future performance than the "downward trend" that's supposedly evidenced by roughly a dozen starts.

 

They're also more illustrative of the type of pitcher Marquis is. People are very quick to use terms like "awful" and "horrible" to describe Marquis. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

[UK1679666180]

 

They're also more illustrative of the type of pitcher Marquis is. People are very quick to use terms like "awful" and "horrible" to describe Marquis. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

 

You're showing what happened, you're not showing why it happened?

 

This is the problem with stats, Marquis won't improve based on what you provided...

 

He's pitching with flaws that he didn't early on and until he corrects them, he's likely going to get rocked and those aren't statistical flaws telling me he'll likely struggle, those are pitching flaws.

[Keener98]

Ok smartass why the hell is it so hard for you to comprehend the fact that his stats are skewed from his 2.35 ERA to start the damn season?

That begs the question, why is it hard for you to comprehend that perhaps the correct explanation here is that Marquis' stats are skewed by his July numbers (6.29 ERA in 6 starts), and the guy we saw from April through June (3.46 in 16 starts) is the "real" Marquis?

 

If you want to throw out a stretch of starts as being anomalous, and look at the rest as being more representative of what everyone should expect going forward, then why is it that you choose to throw out three months and 16 starts' worth of results, and keep one month and 6 starts' worth?

 

And while I'm at it, why should we expect Marquis' 2006 season (6.02 ERA) to be the proper benchmark for his future production, and not his 2005 (4.13) or 2004 (3.71) seasons?

 

Why is it so hard for people to understand trends? He has been on a downward spiral for 3 months now, but people still refer to his April 2.35 ERA, but then ignore the fact that every month since then has progressively gotten worse. The odds are that he continues getting worse, and not goes back to his April, or even May.

 

If the situation was reversed and he had started the season pitching the way he is now, and then turned it around and was pitching lights out then I could understand the thought of him continuing it. However thats not the case and right now all we can hope for is the offense to score alot of runs in his starts, or Lou gets tired of watching him get rocked, and they give Gallagher his shot.

 

And please quit saying Marquis is a 5th starter. Teams dont pay 7 million a year for a 5th starter, and right now he is slotted in the #3 starter.

[TruffleShuffle]

Teams dont pay 7 million a year for a 5th starter

 

the cubs did

[Keener98]

Teams dont pay 7 million a year for a 5th starter

 

the cubs did

 

I dont think when they signed him it was to be a 5th starter. They knew one of the kids in the system would be the number 5, and hoped Hill claimed the number 3. But the point still remains you dont pay 7mill for a #4 either so, I guess I should rephrase that...."smart teams dont pay 7 mil for #4 or #5 starters."

 

But I think the whole numbering of the rotation is pointless anyway, as it rarely occurs your#1 faces the other #1 and on down the line.

[davearm]

Ok smartass why the hell is it so hard for you to comprehend the fact that his stats are skewed from his 2.35 ERA to start the damn season?

That begs the question, why is it hard for you to comprehend that perhaps the correct explanation here is that Marquis' stats are skewed by his July numbers (6.29 ERA in 6 starts), and the guy we saw from April through June (3.46 in 16 starts) is the "real" Marquis?

 

If you want to throw out a stretch of starts as being anomalous, and look at the rest as being more representative of what everyone should expect going forward, then why is it that you choose to throw out three months and 16 starts' worth of results, and keep one month and 6 starts' worth?

 

And while I'm at it, why should we expect Marquis' 2006 season (6.02 ERA) to be the proper benchmark for his future production, and not his 2005 (4.13) or 2004 (3.71) seasons?

 

Why is it so hard for people to understand trends? He has been on a downward spiral for 3 months now, but people still refer to his April 2.35 ERA, but then ignore the fact that every month since then has progressively gotten worse. The odds are that he continues getting worse, and not goes back to his April, or even May.

 

If the situation was reversed and he had started the season pitching the way he is now, and then turned it around and was pitching lights out then I could understand the thought of him continuing it. However thats not the case and right now all we can hope for is the offense to score alot of runs in his starts, or Lou gets tired of watching him get rocked, and they give Gallagher his shot.

 

And please quit saying Marquis is a 5th starter. Teams dont pay 7 million a year for a 5th starter, and right now he is slotted in the #3 starter.

Why is it so hard for people to understand the problems inherent with small sample sizes?

 

You're focused on 6 starts, and calling it a "trend".

 

Meanwhile you're ignoring some much more reliable and meaningful statistics that are rooted in much larger sample sizes, to wit:

- a 3.71 ERA over 32 starts in 2004

- a 4.13 ERA over 32 starts in 2005

- a 3.46 ERA over his first 16 starts in 2007

- an "all in" ERA of 4.56 covering every last one of his 120 starts from 2004 to present.

 

And you must be joking if you don't think large-market teams like the Cubs are forking out $7M/yr or more for #5 quality starters.

 

As evidence I give you Matt Clement (BOS), Kei Igawa and/or Carl Pavano and/or Andy Pettitte (NYY), Randy Wolf (LAD), Jose Contreras (CHW), Bartolo Colon (LAA), Ramon Ortiz (SF now), Jeff Weaver and/or Jarrod Washburn (SEA), Adam Eaton and/or Freddy Garcia and/or Jon Lieber and/or Jamie Moyer (PHI), etc. etc.

 

Wake up and smell the coffee, bud. Here in 2007, plenty of guys a lot worse than Marquis has been are getting paid even more than he is.

[Keener98]

Ok smartass why the hell is it so hard for you to comprehend the fact that his stats are skewed from his 2.35 ERA to start the damn season?

That begs the question, why is it hard for you to comprehend that perhaps the correct explanation here is that Marquis' stats are skewed by his July numbers (6.29 ERA in 6 starts), and the guy we saw from April through June (3.46 in 16 starts) is the "real" Marquis?

 

If you want to throw out a stretch of starts as being anomalous, and look at the rest as being more representative of what everyone should expect going forward, then why is it that you choose to throw out three months and 16 starts' worth of results, and keep one month and 6 starts' worth?

 

And while I'm at it, why should we expect Marquis' 2006 season (6.02 ERA) to be the proper benchmark for his future production, and not his 2005 (4.13) or 2004 (3.71) seasons?

 

Why is it so hard for people to understand trends? He has been on a downward spiral for 3 months now, but people still refer to his April 2.35 ERA, but then ignore the fact that every month since then has progressively gotten worse. The odds are that he continues getting worse, and not goes back to his April, or even May.

 

If the situation was reversed and he had started the season pitching the way he is now, and then turned it around and was pitching lights out then I could understand the thought of him continuing it. However thats not the case and right now all we can hope for is the offense to score alot of runs in his starts, or Lou gets tired of watching him get rocked, and they give Gallagher his shot.

 

And please quit saying Marquis is a 5th starter. Teams dont pay 7 million a year for a 5th starter, and right now he is slotted in the #3 starter.

Why is it so hard for people to understand the problems inherent with small sample sizes?

 

You're focused on 6 starts, and calling it a "trend".

 

Meanwhile you're ignoring some much more reliable and meaningful statistics that are rooted in much larger sample sizes, to wit:

- a 3.71 ERA over 32 starts in 2004

- a 4.13 ERA over 32 starts in 2005

- a 3.46 ERA over his first 16 starts in 2007

- an "all in" ERA of 4.56 covering every last one of his 120 starts from 2004 to present.

 

And you must be joking if you don't think large-market teams like the Cubs are forking out $7M/yr or more for #5 quality starters.

 

As evidence I give you Matt Clement (BOS), Kei Igawa and/or Carl Pavano and/or Andy Pettitte (NYY), Randy Wolf (LAD), Jose Contreras (CHW), Bartolo Colon (LAA), Ramon Ortiz (SF now), Jeff Weaver and/or Jarrod Washburn (SEA), Adam Eaton and/or Freddy Garcia and/or Jon Lieber and/or Jamie Moyer (PHI), etc. etc.

 

Wake up and smell the coffee, bud. Here in 2007, plenty of guys a lot worse than Marquis has been are getting paid even more than he is.

 

Where am I focusing on 6 starts? He has 12 starts in June-Aug with an average ERA for those months of 6.6

 

And if you think half the guys on your list are number 5's then I would really really like some of what you are smoking. Randy Wolf? Jose Contreras? Bartolo Colon? Jamie Moyer? Andy Pettite?

 

Seriously the whole numbering of starters is ignorant. And I really could care less if people are getting paid more than Marquis and sucking as bad or more than him, they arent on the team I root for. And even if thats the case so what, all it says is there are alot of stupid GM's in MLB, thats not breaking news.

 

So you need to wake up and smell the coffee

 

Oh and why did you leave out 2006 in those numbers? It wouldnt have anything to do with the fact that he had a 6.02 ERA that year, and it would really throw a wrench in your argument would it?

 

Good job trying to manipulate the stats in your favor, and because of that Im done having a conversation with you knowing you cant even provide an honest debate.

 

Also do you not see the trend in his stats from 2004-present? Ill let you see if you can figure out just what that trend is.

 

Hint: Its not good.

[davearm]

And if you think half the guys on your list are number 5's then I would really really like some of what you are smoking. Randy Wolf? Jose Contreras? Bartolo Colon? Jamie Moyer? Andy Pettite?

 

Seriously the whole numbering of starters is ignorant. And I really could care less if people are getting paid more than Marquis and sucking as bad or more than him, they arent on the team I root for. And even if thats the case so what, all it says is there are alot of stupid GM's in MLB, thats not breaking news.

You were the one that made this issue relevant with your misinformed statement that "teams dont pay 7 million a year for a 5th starter." That's untrue. Many teams do, and are, as I just showed, and you now concede with your comment about "alot of stupid GM's."

 

Oh and why did you leave out 2006 in those numbers? It wouldnt have anything to do with the fact that he had a 6.02 ERA that year, and it would really throw a wrench in your argument would it?

 

Good job trying to manipulate the stats in your favor, and because of that Im done having a conversation with you knowing you cant even provide an honest debate.

Marquis' 2006 stats are indeed included in my analysis. Go back and read again. The point I've made repeatedly, and you've missed repeatedly, is that just maybe 2006 is the anomaly, and 2004 and 2005 is the norm. Similarly, perhaps the handful of 2007 starts that you're so worked up over are anomalous too, and what Marquis showed over his first dozen or so starts is the norm.

 

You've yet to even address, let alone disprove this hypothesis.

 

Also do you not see the trend in his stats from 2004-present? Ill let you see if you can figure out just what that trend is.

 

Hint: Its not good.

Earlier you asked, why is it so hard for people to understand trends?

 

I guess my response should've been, why is it so easy for people like you to misunderstand/misapply trends.

 

Let me ask you point blank.

 

What do you think Marquis' ERA will be over his 8 or 10 starts to close out the regular season? Just give me a number. 6.00? 8.75? 15.00? What does your fancy trend analysis tell you that number is going to be?

[C.C.]

Teams dont pay 7 million a year for a 5th starter

 

the cubs did

 

San Fran. paid 18 million.

[Keener98]

And if you think half the guys on your list are number 5's then I would really really like some of what you are smoking. Randy Wolf? Jose Contreras? Bartolo Colon? Jamie Moyer? Andy Pettite?

 

Seriously the whole numbering of starters is ignorant. And I really could care less if people are getting paid more than Marquis and sucking as bad or more than him, they arent on the team I root for. And even if thats the case so what, all it says is there are alot of stupid GM's in MLB, thats not breaking news.

You were the one that made this issue relevant with your misinformed statement that "teams dont pay 7 million a year for a 5th starter." That's untrue. Many teams do, and are, as I just showed, and you now concede with your comment about "alot of stupid GM's."

 

Oh and why did you leave out 2006 in those numbers? It wouldnt have anything to do with the fact that he had a 6.02 ERA that year, and it would really throw a wrench in your argument would it?

 

Good job trying to manipulate the stats in your favor, and because of that Im done having a conversation with you knowing you cant even provide an honest debate.

Marquis' 2006 stats are indeed included in my analysis. Go back and read again. The point I've made repeatedly, and you've missed repeatedly, is that just maybe 2006 is the anomaly, and 2004 and 2005 is the norm. Similarly, perhaps the handful of 2007 starts that you're so worked up over are anomalous too, and what Marquis showed over his first dozen or so starts is the norm.

 

You've yet to even address, let alone disprove this hypothesis.

 

Also do you not see the trend in his stats from 2004-present? Ill let you see if you can figure out just what that trend is.

 

Hint: Its not good.

Earlier you asked, why is it so hard for people to understand trends?

 

I guess my response should've been, why is it so easy for people like you to misunderstand/misapply trends.

 

Let me ask you point blank.

 

What do you think Marquis' ERA will be over his 8 or 10 starts to close out the regular season? Just give me a number. 6.00? 8.75? 15.00? What does your fancy trend analysis tell you that number is going to be?

 

Did you even read my post? The guys you have listed as 5th starters arent even 5th starters. Marquis has been on a steady decline every year since 04, that is the trend. He posted an era over 6 over full season last year, and if he continues(which is very likely) he is going to end up with an era over 5. Thats not good.